Sugar Land reviews senior center feasibility study; consultant presents three scenarios and cost estimates

BRW Architects presented the final findings of a feasibility study for the T. E. Harmon Senior Center, showing sustained membership and program growth that has left the center overcrowded and limited in programming. Consultant Emily Murphy told the Parks Board the most frequent piece of feedback from members was the need for more space.

Emily Murphy, of BRW Architects, summarized the public-engagement process (surveys, staff focus groups, open houses and a "money game" exercise) and three development scenarios. Scenario A would renovate and add to the existing facility to reach about 21,000 square feet with an estimated project cost of $14,500,000; Scenario B would be a ground-up new building of roughly 19,800 square feet with an estimated cost of $15,700,000; Scenario C is a larger two-story facility with the most room to grow and was the preferred option among senior participants, though the study notes higher construction and parking trade-offs.

Murphy and city staff outlined operational impacts and funding considerations: a larger facility would require additional full-time and part-time staff (BRW's estimate: roughly four full-time equivalents plus part-time staff and shared janitorial services), parking and ADA accommodations would need careful site planning, and funding would likely require voter approval through a bond election. The consultant also identified potential revenue streams such as rentable multipurpose rooms, event rentals, and phased programming to offset operating costs.

Board members asked detailed questions about capacity, projected growth rates, the effect of a new facility on membership demand, and whether programs currently delivered to Fort Bend ISD schools and Sugar Land sites would continue. Staff said the city owns potential sites analyzed in the report and will present the feasibility study to city council in a future workshop; members asked that staff return with more detailed cost projections, parking analysis and a plan for relocating programs if construction requires temporary closure of the existing center.

The consultant noted trade-offs: Scenario A (addition/renovation) would likely require temporary relocation of programs during construction; Scenarios B and C would allow program continuity but require additional land planning and likely demolishing or repurposing the current building depending on site choices. Seniors and stakeholders favored the larger Scenario C for long-term capacity, but the board emphasized the need to tie any preferred option to a realistic funding strategy and clearer cost projections before recommending a path to council.